TROTSKYISM HAUNTS BOTH MOSCOW AND PEKING
BY Pierre Frank
The new flare-up has- evidently brought the Sino-Soviet sconflict to the point of definitive rupture. After some months, during which articles expressing Peking's view remained unanswered, Moscow has opened its own attack, publishing the report made by Mikhail A. Suslov two months ago at the Central Committee of the Communist party of the Soviet Union. This came shortly after the publication in the Chinese press of an article entitled "The Proletarian Revolution and Khrushchev's Revisionism." [See Hsinhua March 31 for full text, |
That the definitive rupture is close at hand can be judged from the fact that Suslov!s report calis for the convocation of a oonfoerence of Communist parties, not to seek a compromise, but to assure a "serious, and from all appearances, prolonged struggle," From now on, the most faithful supporters of the Moscow leadership, such as the heads of the French Conmunist party, will defend this proposal, denounce any attempt at evading taking a clear stand, of maintaining a straddling, conciliatory attitude, eto,
Without the least doubt, Khrushchev was compelled to conclude that the Chinese would concede no compromise solution, that continu~ ation of the situation of the past months would enable the Chincse to gain ground, would encourage all those who would like to utilize the
ee LL ee
conflict to display a certain independence, Therefore he decided to. ‘pose the question of a conference as a means of lining up the maximum forces against a danger that “is growing; all the more so since we are dealing with leaders of a government party, who have at their disposal a vast state apparatus and means of ideological action." (Suslov,. )
- What will be the response of the Communist parties to this pro-« posal for an international conference? The answer will prove to be of considerable interest, At the 1960 conference, 81 parties sent representatives, Can Khrushchev hold a conference at which this number would be appreciably less without losing face? Up to now the Italian Communist party has maintained a reserved attitude on such a conference although Togliatti politically is for Khrushchev and against Mao, The famous "unity" of the ‘official Communist movement is in for a severe test.
#
sk
bd
- This development on the organizational level has been accompan= ied by an intensification of political attacks, as is attested by the two documents mentioned above, In this article we will leave aside the epithots cast by both sides in the purest Stalinist style, lLikewise the gross distortions of each other's positions, The old Stalinist school shows that it still has its representatives in the two camps. One must admit, however, that in this field, Khrushchev, during his Budapest junket, proved himself to be the most apt student. Thus, on the question. of nuclear war, he attributed a whole scries of. stupid propositions to Mao and concluded that "only a complete idiot" could hold such views,
Inevitably, each side strikes hardest at his adversary's weak points, The Soviet leaders draw the maximum from the Chinese view that Yugoslavia is a "capitalist state"; and, of course, the Chinese praise of Stalin. Contrariwise, the Chinese point to many excellent examples of the bankruptcy and the stupidity of the policy of the parliamentary and peaceful road to power, (Iraq, India, France, Algeria, Spain. .. a However, in these documents written by bureaucrats, where reality and the differences are expressed in a quite distorted Way, acertain number of essential things appear in sharp relief,
The Suslov report, for instance, begins by underlining the principal difference in the current conflict. The fundamental thesis in the 1960 declaration, he says, is that the "world socialist system". -- meaning the economy of the workers states -- is the decisive fao~ tor in the’ evolution of the entire.world toward socialism, Suslov accuses the Chinese of revising this thesis when they write: "The revolution of national liberation in Asia, Africa and Latin America appears today as. the most important force in dealing direct blows to imperialism," To say this, he holds, means that "the Chinese theore-
n12-
ticians ‘grant it [the world socialist system] only the role of a tpoint of support! consigned to support and to. develop the revolu-~ tion of oppressed nations and peoples throughout the world," To say that, Suslov adds, is not to understand the importance of peaseful economic competition,
He likewise accuses the Chinese of distorting the Soviet point of view: "By distorting the root of the matter, the leadership of the CCP seeks to prove that economic competition would signify that ‘the oppressed nations and peoples in general do not need to conduct ‘a struggle, to make a revolution, that they have but to wait tranquilly while the Soviet Union outstrips the most developed capitalist countries in the level of production and material well-being, mt
rf there is a "distortion" of the thinking of the Soviet leaders, it is in the sense that they are not totally hostile to mass struggles. However, they don't envisage them as revolutionary struggles for the conquest of power, but simply and primarily as means of pressure on the capitalist states to bring them within the orbit of Soviet diplomacy -~ as points of support for that motor force of history which economic construction in the USSR . and the other workers states has became.
Unquestionably, this isa difference of first-rate , importance, brought out by this conflict, for the consideration of Communists ‘the world over, particularly’ the Communists: of. countries suffering the evils of the capitalist system. Should their main strategic objective be the overthrow of their capitalist system or should they seek to bring about bourgeois political combinations in their coun try that will come to a diplomatic understanding with the Kremlin? Is the motor force of history no longer the revolutionary struggle of the masses but economic construction in a certain number of work~ers states? This is the essential issue which the Trotskyists have emphasized for years to the best of their ability although with but limited forces and limited means. The Chinese are bringing this out now with.a force, which, as we see, has aroused fear among the Khrushchevist. leaders,
As we have likewise said many times, the Chinese did not reach this view through purely ideological means, They did so through the necessities of their own situation, through empirical testing of Soviet policy, to some degree at their own expense. Because of the pragmatic way in which they progressed politically on this point and because of the fact that the needs of the Chinese state weigh considerably on them, the Chinese are not always consistent in their line concerning this, The Khrushchevist leadership, on the other hand, is absolutely consistent in its line on peaceful economic come petition to which it seeks to subordinate the mass movement,
The Chinese attack has. proved strong enough to place the Soviet leadership on the defensive on this point. In Budapest, Khrushchev. was obliged to plead: “We are not against the world revolution,
but. . . “ But, but, we cantt do. this for other people. As if anyone had posed the question that way. rr
oh
ate
+
ste
In the Chinese view, classes have not been abolished in the USSR3 capitalist dangers remains; and under the gapitalist pressure revisionism surges up == as has been seen in the Communist parties since the end of the war, first of all with Browder, then with Tito, and now with Khrushchev,
In the Soviet view, China is a country where nonproletarian layers exercise enormous predominance. and. the leaders of the CCP "certainly lack the Marxist-Leninist temper to firmly oppose the pressure of the petty~bourgeois spirit.'
In other. words, for the one side it's a question of the pressure of capitalism in the country; for the other side, the pressure of the petty. bourgeoisie,
- But, while finding this aifference in the social roots of their . positions, each of them accuses the other of one and the same political crime ~~ Trotskyism. Once again in this. dispute, Trotskyism ~buried so many times -- makes it appearance,
With the Chinese, Trotskyism is simply a-reformist, a Menshovik concept ~~ their presentations on this subject are more than summary, Suslov finds Trotskyism.in the Chinese position not only in their "factional" methods, not only in their propositions on the degeneration of the Soviet leaders, but also in their views on the colonial revolution, in their concept of the armed revolutionary struggle, in the question of "peaceful coexistence,"(1)
It is a considerable error to maintain that the two antagonists launch mutual accusations of Trotskyism because, as certain bourgeois or Social Democratic commentators think, it is the strongest epithet among Communist parties. For years the bureaucrats preferred to maintain silence rather than mention Trotskyism and the Trotskyists,
It is easily demonstrable that the top Soviet and Chinese ideo~ logues are closely following the Trotskyist publications -- these publications whose circulation is generally nowhere near that of the official Communist press,
They do not cite other political currents. And for good reason, They know «-- not from considered theoretical deduction but from a kind of instinot of self-preservation -- that this crisis in their ranks does not pose a capitalist or social-democratic threat. After
(Trt would require several articles to point out all the distortions in Suslov's article of the real Trotskyist views.
so many years in which the world relatioénship of forces has been. favorable to socialism, the danger which these leaderships sense in the membership of their own organizations is Trotskyism,
When the Chinese hear the talk about the crimes of Stalin, when the Soviet leaders hear the talk about uninterrupted revolution, to each it sounds like the echo of the Trotskyism that can reappear with the present great: revolutionary upsurge in the world,
They are afraid. And they seek ab ‘the same time to frighten each other: "Look who youtre working for in the final analysist" This. -is what they are telling each other, The Soviet leaders reveal that: they are even more preoceupied, more worried over this, than | the Chinese leaders,. - : ae
Whatever either side does, they cannot put a brake on the movement of history. For many long years the bureaucratic machines have dominated the mass movement, The growing strength of this movement is breaking through this grip. The machines accuse each other of capitulation, of revisionism, adventurism, etc. They explain the current crisis by the pressure’ of the bourgeoisie or of the. petty “bourgeoisie, They show themselves incapable of labelling themselves, of seeing what they themselves are ~= bureaucrats; and seeing that their days are numbered,-
- The present crisis of the Communist movement is above all the ‘crisis of these bureaucratic leaderships, a crisis of the regenera~ tion of communism, That is why these leaderships will end up doing right well; helping in their own way to bring about the final triumph of Trotskyism.